Doyle v. Madera Superior Court

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS PIKE DOYLE, SR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01488-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO MITCHELL RIGBY, D.A. COUNTY OF COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MADERA, NOAH MARSHALL, (Doc. 2) 13 Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc.

1.) Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 2.)

The Court therefore directed Plaintiff, by no later than November 22, 2019, to either pay the $400 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s October 23, 2019 Order, (id).

The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s October 23, 2019 Order, (Doc. 2), within the specified period of time. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fail to file this statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: December 2, 2019 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE